"According to new research from Strategy Analytics, global Android tablet shipments have increased 177 percent annually to 17.6 million units. The total number of tablets shipped in Q1 of 2013 was 40.6 million. Since 17.6 million of those 40 million tablets where powered by Android then it means that Android has a 43 percent global share. The other two big operating systems (and their respective eco-systems) in the global tablet market are Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows 8 RT. Apple still leads the race with a 48 percent market share, while Microsoft has managed to go from nothing (since Windows 8 RT is its first real tablet OS) to a 7.5 percent market share by selling some 3 million Windows based tablets." If these figures are even remotely accurate, we're going to see Android dominate the tablet (in market share) too. Not good. The Windows RT figures are a shimmer of hope, though.

I'm a little confused about how the increase in Android tablets is 'not good'. When the iPad originally launched in 2010, Apple quickly established a monopoly position in the tablet market and as we well know (Microsoft being an example on desktop PCs), monopolies tend to fail to innovate and often don't produce particularly good value for money either.

So how is it a bad thing that the growth Android has shown removes Apple's monopoly position? Plus the emergence of Windows as a third place player to keep the other two on their toes isn't too shabby either.

I think if Android hit 90%+ levels that Apple had a couple of years ago, then I think it would be something to be concerned about, but as it stands, this is a bit of a non-story.

What Android does that Apple has failed to do in the last year or so is innovate, in terms of the OS, the hardware, the form factor and obviously the pricing as well. It's why Android is massively growing in popularity - there's loads of choice, the full price range is covered and the best Android tablets now match (or occasionally beat) the best iPads, but almost always at a lower price.

This is not an attempt to argue anything just a genuine expression of puzzlement at the disconnect between the two figures. The high value for iPad web usage is not an outlier but is similar to other measurements of tablet usage particularly web usage. I find it very odd because if there is one thing that one would expect a tablet to be heavily used for it's web browsing.

That could possibly be the case but the North American results I quoted, as I said, are not outliers in terms of measurements of actual tablet and mobile OS usage using various metrics including in studies that spread beyond the US.

For example this study from November 2012 by Onswipe says that the iPad is responsible for 98 percent of all tablet-based traffic to its publisher partners. All other tablets drive less than 2 percent of web traffic combined.

These sorts of disparities in tablet use are very similar to many studies using different metrics showing an odd and very striking disparity between iOS and Android platform usage. It's even odder when measured by table web usage because, as I said, surfing the web would seem to be a core tablet functionality.

The conclusions I draw is that either:

- the claims about actual Android tablet sales are inaccurate (which is possible given the reluctance of Android OE to release actual sales /shipment data)

or

- people are buying lots of Android tablets and not using them for anything much

Anything much? I'm sorry, but web browsing is not everything.
How many times do people have to repeat it for you?

Given that sales numbers have been reported by many independent studies, I have to conclude:
- You are an ignorant Apple fanboi, that will do anything to support his viewpoint.(You sound like proponents of ID by now)

I was kind of hoping my personal observations could be made an exception.

On a more serious note. A lot of iPhones are sold and we see them. A lot of Android are sold and we see them. Some people still have a BlackBerry and sometimes we see them. A lot of iPads are sold and we see them. A lot Android tablets are sold and... we do not see them(1).

When someone sees my iPad they ask which generation it is, they tell me either what theirs is or their plans of buying one (asking me which I would recommend). Nobody ever told me they have an Android tablet.

At work I would at least expect a Microsoft tablet to make an appearance, but visitors all carry iPads.

There are about 190 other countries holding about 95% of the rest of the population. Apple actually caters to very little of that massive global market, since they are interested in large margins not large user bases.

You are correct. This numbers does not mean that android has a ~44% market share. All that number tells you is for the quarter android tablets accounted for ~44% of the tablets shipment. What about all of the other quarters? Market share is a sum of the entire market not a sum of a quarters worth of shipment.

I find it very odd because if there is one thing that one would expect a tablet to be heavily used for it's web browsing.

While I can only speak for myself, I rarely ever use my Nexus 7 for web browsing. If anything, I'll browse RSS feeds and save articles to Pocket, and then read them from there. Every once in awhile I'll hit a web site, but not often.

It's the same "disconnect" we see with the browser statistics for the iPhone as opposed to the rest of the world, Android, etc. Statistics show that 80% of browser use on smartphones comes from iOS, meaning Safari or other iOS-capable browsers, and not from Android. I find this odd as well, but I guess it just means that iOS users actually USE the browsers on their devices while Android uses do not. That says a lot about how people use their devices. Maybe Android users are a tad less savvy, knowledgeable, or dare I say it, sophisticated in how they use their devices? It sure does look that way.

The same thing will probably happen with Android tablets, but we will have to wait and see what happens. There are dozens of what I consider to be barely-useful and even crappy Android tablets for sale, just like there are dozens of crappy Android phones that I as an iPhone user would not have if you gave them to me, but people will buy them because they are cheap and then never utilize all the features. End result is, a LOT of people buy Android devices, but few people actually USE them. That's a simplistic way of stating it, but the statistics are bearing it out.

Reading the interesting comments here (other than the daft and juvenile one about iToys - jeez grow up already) my observations are this:

- Probably the reports about Android tablet shipments are an overstated count of Android tablets sold (remember when the the evidence from the Samsung Apple trial showed by how much Samsung Tab sales had been over estimated), but nevertheless Android tablet sales are increasing as a proportion of the tablet market. I certainly don't see that many non-iPad tablets in daily use in the UK where the Tube is a good place for device watching, but it's quite possible that if I were travelling on the Shanghai metro the situation would be very different.

- The relationship between sales channels and mobile device sales performance is absolutely fundamental and one of the key differences between the PC and the consumer device markets. For example the indifference of sales channels to Windows 8 devices has been a big factor in it's poor performance.

- The difference in usage of iOS and Android seems baked in and it's existence is supported by so many methodologies of counting for so many different activities in so many geographical zones that it is undoubtably real and of a significant scale.

- This difference in platform usage between iOS and Android is of huge significance in understanding platform performance in the mobile area (not least because it makes market share a very poor proxy for platform performance) but it is still a poorly understood phenomena.

I suspect that the explanation of the differential in platform performance between iOS and Android is bound up with with two thing (there are probably other factors at work I cannot think of).

First iOS was always designed primarily as a computer operating system platform first and a mobile phone OS secondarily, whilst Android was designed as a mobile phone OS first and as a platform for Google web services secondarily and only really evolved into a computer operating system later. This subtle but important difference of genesis has all sorts of subtle but important repercussions for the way the two platforms function in the world.

The other explanation for the the differential in platform performance is that lots of people buy Android phones because they want a new phone and the point of sales people point them at Android smart phones even when the customer doesn't actually want a computing platform in their pocket and have no intention of using their phones as computing platform. If that is indeed true I am not sure how that relates to tablet purchasers.

I suspect that the explanation of the differential in platform performance between iOS and Android is bound up with with two thing (there are probably other factors at work I cannot think of).

First iOS was always designed primarily as a computer operating system platform first and a mobile phone OS secondarily, whilst Android was designed as a mobile phone OS first and as a platform for Google web services secondarily and only really evolved into a computer operating system later. This subtle but important difference of genesis has all sorts of subtle but important repercussions for the way the two platforms function in the world.

The other explanation for the the differential in platform performance is that lots of people buy Android phones because they want a new phone and the point of sales people point them at Android smart phones even when the customer doesn't actually want a computing platform in their pocket and have no intention of using their phones as computing platform. If that is indeed true I am not sure how that relates to tablet purchasers.

Nah.

Market share is just recent sales. In recent sales figures, Android tablets have almost caught up with iPads.

Web usage depends on how many tablets are currently in use. Because iPads have dominated the tablet market share for a number of years past, it will still take some number of years yet before the number of Android tablets in use begins to match the number of iPads in use.

Market share is just recent sales. In recent sales figures, Android tablets have almost caught up with iPads.

Web usage depends on how many tablets are currently in use. Because iPads have dominated the tablet market share for a number of years past, it will still take some number of years yet before the number of Android tablets in use begins to match the number of iPads in use.

Pithy response but I think you are not reading what I am saying.

Firstly the differential in platform performance between iOS and Android extends way beyond web usage and can be clearly seen using many different ways of measuring platform activity (such as ad revenues, video consumption, app revenues, e-commerce activity,etc. BTW I can post links on data sources on those metrics if you are interested). Web usage was highlighted in my comments merely because that of all the indicators for tablets one would expect that one to be most similar across platforms as almost everyone, one would assume, uses their tablets to surf the web.

Secondly Android phones have been outselling iPhones for sometime now and the Android phone installed base at least matches, and almost certainly exceeds, the iPhone installed base by now and yet the same pattern of differential platform performance is quite clearly visibly when comparing Android phones and iPhones.

Market share is just recent sales. In recent sales figures, Android tablets have almost caught up with iPads.

Web usage depends on how many tablets are currently in use. Because iPads have dominated the tablet market share for a number of years past, it will still take some number of years yet before the number of Android tablets in use begins to match the number of iPads in use.

Pithy response but I think you are not reading what I am saying.

Firstly the differential in platform performance between iOS and Android extends way beyond web usage and can be clearly seen using many different ways of measuring platform activity (such as ad revenues, video consumption, app revenues, e-commerce activity,etc. BTW I can post links on data sources on those metrics if you are interested). Web usage was highlighted in my comments merely because that of all the indicators for tablets one would expect that one to be most similar across platforms as almost everyone, one would assume, uses their tablets to surf the web. "

My own use of my Android tablet is to: render video and audio multimedia files, use as an e-reader and to surf the web.

In the first use case, I find Android is better because it does not depend on iTunes or similar. It covers more multimedia file types. In the second use case Android works fine, I cannot speak for iOS. In the third use case I am told that Safari is great on an iPad, and I agree that the Android browser and Chrome for Android has issues, so I have been using Firefox for Android, which is the only solution I have found so far on Android which allows ad-blocking. I think Firefox on Android may begin to get more market share in the near future.

I know personal anecdotes don't count for much, and my experience with iPads is admittedly a little sparse, but so far I haven't really had any issue with Android tablet usability, given the constraints of using a tablet. Having said that, and so bearing in mind that caveat, nevertheless I think that once word-of-mouth really takes hold, a lot of people with a "lukewarm" interest in getting a tablet will latch on to the cheaper Android tablets that are starting to come out. For a lot of people an iPad would be a purchase much harder to justify.

Secondly Android phones have been outselling iPhones for sometime now and the Android phone installed base at least matches, and almost certainly exceeds, the iPhone installed base by now and yet the same pattern of differential platform performance is quite clearly visibly when comparing Android phones and iPhones.

Phones are a different use case, and a different issue. We are not talking about phones here.

First iOS was always designed primarily as a computer operating system platform first and a mobile phone OS secondarily, whilst Android was designed as a mobile phone OS first and as a platform for Google web services secondarily and only really evolved into a computer operating system later.

From where do you get such stuff? iOS didn't support apps for a year (Android since the beginning had them in focus, as far as we can tell), the main "smart" part about iOS was a good web browser, mobile Safari - so a platform to web services.

"As a mobile phones OS first" you get something like more classic Symbian.

Android has usability issues vs iOS. People are less inclined to actually use it ........

In my country, for a number of years now the only tablet one used to be able to buy was an iPad. Only recently have Android tablets become available, and even more recently they have been available at a far more attractive price. There are some decent specification Android tablets beginning to become available in stores at between 75% and 50% the price of an equivalent iPad.

Even if there were "usability issues", which I don't believe for a second, that isn't going to stop the majority of tablets being sold switching to Android tablets given a price discount of between 25% and 50%.

Indeed, this is what I begin to see reflected on the shelves of consumer electronics stores ... recently there is about twice the choice of Android tablets and twice the display area compared to iPads.

This is not an attempt to argue anything just a genuine expression of puzzlement at the disconnect between the two figures. The high value for iPad web usage is not an outlier but is similar to other measurements of tablet usage particularly web usage. I find it very odd because if there is one thing that one would expect a tablet to be heavily used for it's web browsing.

Any theories?

Web usage would be proportional to "installed base".

Market share is an attempt to measure the numbers of the units being sold right now.

The two figures are related only in the sense that the first figure is the all-time integral of the second.

Apples iOS and iPads have been very dominant in the tablet market for a long time.

In consumer stores in my country for a few years now the only tablets one used to be able to buy were iPads. Only recently have Android tablets been offered as an alternative.

Even if Android tablets were outselling iPads now (which they are not as yet) then it would still take a number years worth of sales to even out the web usage statistics.

Market share is an attempt to measure the numbers of the units being sold right now.

The two figures are related only in the sense that the first figure is the all-time integral of the second.

Apples iOS and iPads have been very dominant in the tablet market for a long time. Even if Android tablets were outselling iPads now (which they are not as yet) then it would still take a number years worth of sales to even out the web usage statistics.

True - but that has ceased to apply to the phone market and the differential in platform performance is just as marked there - see my longer comment below.

Market share is an attempt to measure the numbers of the units being sold right now.

The two figures are related only in the sense that the first figure is the all-time integral of the second.

Apples iOS and iPads have been very dominant in the tablet market for a long time. Even if Android tablets were outselling iPads now (which they are not as yet) then it would still take a number years worth of sales to even out the web usage statistics.

True - but that has ceased to apply to the phone market and the differential in platform performance is just as marked there - see my longer comment below. "

Indeed, the phone market is a bit different, I imagine because people tend to update their phone quite often.

However, this topic is about the tablet market. The difference between market share and installed base would be a far greater factor in relation to the tablet market. It is the tablet market, not phones, which we are talking about.

That's only true if "All devices are used equally to access the web" is also true. Other uses for tablets such as media creation and consumption, gaming, shopping, etc. exist which I personally believe makes the latter unlikely, and thus I don't buy the former.

A good counterpoint is that, when Symbian was demonstrably holding over 60% of the world installed base and iPhone was the hot new contender, website traffic analysis showed iOS to generate over 80% of the mobile web traffic to major sites (sorry not to have a link, it's been a while).

The Symbian browser was awful (I'm told), and the Android browser is not as good as Safari (I'm also told - I use an iPad), so the situation seems somewhat analogous.

Even if Android tablets were outselling iPads now (which they are not as yet) then it would still take a number years worth of sales to even out the web usage statistics.

Actually, in point of fact, when you add in the "grey market" or white-box Android tablet sales, e.g. from the Chinese manufacturers, even conservative estimates (of 5 - 6 million such units) show Android shipping easily more units than iPads.

Two factors I'm surprised no one has mentioned -

1) The counts are for units shipped, not sold ... so you'd expect somewhat of a partially-delayed effect on usage statistics

2) The web usage metrics each have a specific methodology which has to be evaluated to see if it skews data in favor of one or the other product. E.g., NetMarketShare gathers data predominantly from "pay-per-click" sites (78% of the sites submitting data); is it not feasible that iPad users might more frequently end up at such sites, because of either cultural differences or ecosystem differences, where Android users less so?

I have a theory - Math (or Maths if you prefer). The number of people browsing includes ALL people who have a tablet - which includes all the people who bought iPads since it came out. Hence you would expect the percentage of tablet users using iPads to still be high. However, if the trend of 43% Android sales for the previous quarter continues, then I would expect the percentage of tablet users using iPads should drop even though the iPad is still just barely outselling Android - it is not selling at a percentage of 82%. In addition, the acceleration of Android use would lead one to expect the percentage of Android use (velocity) to increase. However, I do think the use of mathematics is highly discouraged in the U.S:

recent analysis of tablet web usage in the US and Canada show the iPad with an 82% share?

Any theories?

Flawed anaysis, as it's not an easy thing to do. There are several simple factors that easily can give 10-20% error.

Does the site statistics from the sites in the analyze correcty identify all the avalible browsers on Android tablets as such? Or does some end up in an "others" category and get omited from the analysis?

What kind of sites are included in the data used to preform the analyze? If they include mainstream media sites(likely), does those sites also have apps for accessing their content? Are there factors making Android users prefer those apps(quality vs web version. price vs iPad version etc).

Do the sites included have "mobile" and "desktop" versions(common among those media sites). Would Android users prefer to identify as desktop user on those sites to avoid a less functional "mobile" version?

I think WinRT/WinPhone is dead. There was a big hype from my clients to port/develop games and apps for the W8 ecosystem last year, then it died out. By the time I've been to GDC, every fellow developer i talked to felt kind of the same, that the hype died out and no one is interested.

Lack of OpenGL ES 2.0 also makes it more expensive to port games, as you have to charge clients for a writing a completely new backend, so they care even less and the lack of quality apps/games is highly noticeable on the platform.

And honestly, the "metro" interface I don't get why so much hype. In phones, it's like a dumbed down Android, except notifications are much more more annoying, icons are all the same and it probably needs a few more years of polish until it gets to be as usable as the other phones. Blackberry did a much better job with the Z10.

Lack of OpenGL ES 2.0 also makes it more expensive to port games, as you have to charge clients for a writing a completely new backend, so they care even less and the lack of quality apps/games is highly noticeable on the platform.

This is only true for indie developers.

Professional game studios don't care about APIs and languages, rather in delivering their game concept regardless of the technology.

Contrary to popular belief in the FOSS world, game consoles don't use OpenGL at all, even what PS3 offers is used only for prototypes, with engines being actually built with Libcgm.

Studios specializing in porting games to specific hardware/operating systems are as old as the industry itself.

Porting is expensive, my company does a lot of ports for high profile companies and I can assure you it's not cheap, ranging from a quarter to half the original development cost.

WP8 sales are poor, but if WP8 supported GLES2, at least porting wouldn't be as expensive and many companies would gladly decide to bring their games (as it happens with BB10). MS is just wasting their chance.

You may not be familiar with his rotation schedule. He is a Windows shill on Mondays and Tuesdays. Wednesday-Friday he is an Apple Fanboi. On the weekends he varies between a Linux Savant and a Amiga Desperado. I think this is on the FAQs page.

It should also be noted that for the Windows numbers the Surface retail availability was and is still very limited, in fact, this is the case for Windows devices in general. Especially touch. These numbers also don't include hybrid PC devices which convert into tablets.

The Windows numbers are definitely a good vindication of Microsoft's strategy, but much work remains to be done.

The interesting part I think is that Microsoft caught the tablet wave rather early instead of missing the boat completely with phones. It'll be interesting to see the success that not so entrenched market affords them.

As an unhappy WP8 user, I think they are both kind of unusable and deserve the slow/poor sales.

I was happy because in theory (and unlike Google) MS can update your phone independently from the carrier, but I had the phone for a while and no updates happened. The OS is still plagued of bugs and usability issues and MS is not doing anything about it. On the other side,

Google updates my Nexus 7 constantly and every update makes the software noticeably much better, so I guess next time I'll just get a Nexus Phone.

I would not say the tablet market is "young" at all, tablet devices have been offered for over two decades at least. Microsoft, if anything, caught the "tablet" wave years before google was even incorporated.

Microsoft most definitively did not leave the tablet market for dead. It's just that their execution sucked and have little to show for it, even though they have been developing the tablet form factor for longer than any other major vendor, period. Apple's iPad was the first tablet that did not sucked balls from both usability standpoint and non-technical consumer perspectives.

I'd assume that microsoft would like to pretend when it comes to tablets, RT is their tabula rasa. Which makes sense, from a standpoint of trying to induce investor/market confidence. Historical amnesia is much better than admitting to have been taken to the woodshed, on the very market windows had a decade plus head start.

You say they didn't, then proceed to outline ways in which they did indeed abandon the consumer tablet market.

Again, "failing" is not the same as "abandoning." Microsoft spent a huge chunk of cash and effort developing the pen-tablet-mobile windows ecosystem, for years, and were doing so even as the first iPad was being unveiled. The correct historical context puts the narrative indicating the inevitability of windows on tablets "this time around" in its correct light. Whether you like that or not, since you have a vested interest in the success of the platform, is a different matter.

Again. I think we're splitting hairs. The segment was for all intents and purposes abandoned.

There was no major investment, no significant sales, and the form factors were confusing and never caught on. It was a failure which turned into a full scale abandonment with time.

I don't think they consciously at one point had a switch they flipped which killed their efforts, they just had a chronic and gradual slowdown in investment.

Its a shame because their Pen platform still is ahead of its time. But Microsoft in general was way ahead of themselves with the Slate PC initiative.

I liken it to Apples Newton efforts, very advanced and neat, but just mismatched for the time. The formula was wrong.

Apple perfected the tablet formula and others since have copied them in execution to an extent. This is just Microsoft doing it.

Anyway, the spirit of my initial comment which likely has been lost by now, was that for once, Microsoft isn't hopelessly behind in a technological trend. Tablets are still selling cumulatively a quarter what Apple sells in phones by themselves a quarter, so the market is very nascent and unsaturated.

For whom? Sounds like Microsoft is someone we should feel pity for. Seriously, the day Microsoft files bankruptcy, I'll be throwing a party at my house. The trend looks promising.

Quite obviously for Microsoft. I also find it pretty sociopathic that you'd throw a party over the potential job loss of 90,000 employees. You have a twisted moral fiber that probably explains the rest of this useless comment.

Android did well for themselves by carving out a niche in the sub 10 inch market, prior to this, Apple was slaughtering them in the 10 inch category.

It was a smart play, but its important to be honest here. Android generally does well in environments with razor thin margins and extreme price erosion.

Apple refused to meet them at the price point they played at, so they essentially ceded that ground to a relatively uncontested Android device.

However, it is important to note that Androids' floundering tablet ecosystem sorely needed to finally achieve critical mass. I have to admit the speed with which these smaller screened devices ramped up in volume surprised me. The important part for Android now is maintaining this lead in shipped figures.

I was speaking about their limited brick and mortar presence, Microsoft resellers aren't even allowed to buy the Surface in bulk. Enterprises can't volume license either.

Microsoft is being understandably methodical, but its worth noting that a Surface retails for many times the price of a white label Android tablet or a $199 Nexus tablet. The ASPs on the Surface Pro SKUs have to be making even Apple envious. The things are like $1000 and still selling well enough to help Microsoft plug the revenue shortfall from a slowed PC market.

The market share counts for the currently sold devices, not for all devices in use. That's a HUGE difference. Overall, the share of Windows 8/RT in the overall tablet market is negligible.

I'm well aware, and I allude to much in the very same sentences you quote. It shows a general direction, and the situation is exactly the same for Android tablets.

The Android tablet installed base isn't terrific, but it doesn't matter as much as showing a recent uptick in Android sales.

The sheer size of the market and volumes shipped distort market share to the extent that it no longer conveys relevant information. You're going to be dwarfed by Apples numbers. This is why shipment market share, or a three month market share is a lot more indicative of times and trends as a whole.

The iPad came out in January 2010

It could've come out in 2003, the volumes in the tablet space are still miniscule compared to say the degree of saturation in the mobile phone market. There is clearly a lot of opportunity left.

I don't get why Android domination is a bad thing and Windows success is a good thing. Android is open (not as open as some of us would like, including myself, but it's the most open successful OS out there). Google would never be able to abuse us the way Microsoft abused us for decades. Because if Google starts abusing us, someone else will get the code and build something better. Look at what Amazon and Cyanogenmod do if you don't believe me. How can we forget what happened to the PC when Microsoft became a monopoly? Monopoly can't happen with Android because it's open source. Microsoft must not be given the slightest chance to succeed in mobile. I am all for competition but not from closed OSes. We have plenty of open source OSes. The mobile industry has a chance to not repeat the mistake the PC industry made decades ago.

This is a big milestone in general for a new Linux graphics driver beginning to receive 3D support, but making it even more exciting is that this is an open-source ARM graphics driver that has the blessing of NVIDIA Corp. It will likely be a number of months before the Gallium3D driver is in a nice state, but hopefully the Tegra DRM changes will be ready for merging into the Linux 3.10 kernel.

Well, I'm all for competition among all vendors. But I personally hope the proprietary competitors fail to gain significant market share, and for the reason you state.

My personal ideal mobile market is three open environments splitting the bulk of sales and thus highly motivated to innovate, with the proprietary offerings collecting dust amongst the occasional thrown chair. Just my personal opinion, of course. ;-)

One proof to me of the value of an open market leader is in Ubuntu's use of the identical Linux kernel as Android, making porting their upcoming mobile product to Android devices far easier than to (say) a Windows device.

This if of potential interest to mainstream consumers as well (should Ubuntu gain traction in mobile), since sharing the kernel and drivers should be more cost-effective for a major supplier to offer Ubuntu and Android than (say) WP8 and Android.